Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Facts The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball" which claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The Company published advertisements claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement. £100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1,000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. Mrs. Carlill seen the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892 (was she retarded?). She claimed £1,000 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims" they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between her and the company, and so they ought to pay. The company argued it is not a serious contract (fucking serious?). Issue #Can one make a contract with the whole world? #How does one interpret vague terms? #Was the ad a "mere puff"? #Does performance of the conditions advertised in the paper constitute acceptance of an offer? #Was there any fucking consideration? Decision Appeal dismissed. fuck Reasons Bowen, writing for the majority, held that the contract was not with the whole world, but rather with those who fulfill the stipulated conditions. He held that the terms were not vague if read in their plain meaning; entitled to reward (that is, a contract is formed) if one used the ball for two weeks, three times a day and got the flu. However if one used the ball before the ad and got the flu there would be no contract created due to no reliance interest. As for mere puffery, the language of the aids indicating that they had £1,000,000 in the bank directly contradicts that claim. Performance of the condition of the ad was sufficient acceptance and it was not necessary that Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. be notified of the intention to be bound. He further ruled that the inconvenience of Carlill was insufficient consideration. Lindley wrote that notification of acceptance need not precede performance, in this case acceptance was contemporaneous with performance. Further, the offeror showed by their words and the nature of transaction that he did not require notice of acceptance to be bound. Ratio *An advertisement can constitute a unilateral contract, which can be accepted by fulfilling the conditions of the contract; no formal acceptance required. *The determination of a serious offer will be determined from the words and actions. *The terms of the contract (if vague) will be interpreted purposively from the contract. *The offeror can determine how acceptance of offer will be made. Category:Contract law Category:Cases from the United Kingdom Category:Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases Category:Offer Category:Invitation to treat Category:Unilateral contracts Category:Communication of offer